• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

HR, hiring managers, etc. does current employment status make a difference?

B

BlahBlahYouToo

Lifer
lets say you have 3 candidates that are equally qualified in terms of competency, skill set, qualifications for a job opening.
they are same age, from equally prestigious schools, good people skills, good compatibility with team that he/she will be working with if hired, etc.

they all are the sole breadwinner for the family and "need" the job equally to support their family.

candidate #1 currently has a job and is looking for an environment change.
candidate #2 has been laid off for 6+ months, actively networking and searching during that time, but due to the poor economy hasn't been able to find anything
candidate #3 recently got laid off this past week.

who do you hire?

and yes, they are equally attractive, because i know someone is going to suggest hiring the hottest one.
 
You hire the one you feel most comfortable with.

I doubt many people would decide based on which one had a job already etc etc.
 
people looking for change of environment always throws up flags for me.

if it were me and had the choice id hire all 3 or the best two on a trial basis and pick one after a month. or pick them all since they are all equally hot.
 
I'd go with the one who hasn't had a job for a while. It would be easier to boss him around, knowing he is super desperate for money.

The guy who has a job that is willing to leave for whatever reason, well, he may leave me for whatever reason.

The guy who just got laid off probably deserved it. I won't take a chance on him.
 
BlahBlahYouToo said:
who do you hire?
Click to expand...

Serious answer?

Being employed during a job hunt can either hurt you or help you, depending on the situation. If you're employed by one of my clients or business partners, I may be somewhat reluctant to hire you, particularly if you're a key employee. However, if you're employed by my competitor, or you're a freelancer that can bring accounts with you, it works in your favor.

Otherwise, it really doesn't matter. The only employment-related red flags I watch out for is people that have been unemployed for a long period of time without a reasonable explanation, or people that job hop.

/manager
 
Uh, I'm not in HR or a manager, but in my limited experience being unemployed is not nearly as big a deal as why you are unemployed.
 
If "all things being equal" then i'd probably hire the guy without a job. Just seems like the right thing to do.

But in the real world, it is likely never the case. Check WHY the guy who was laid off, was laid off. Did the company go under? Was he part of the problem or was it really out of his hands? Is the company still in business? With people still doing what he did? Then he was probably laid off because he was the least productive member of the team.

Remember, no one is ever as good as they are on their interview,
 
I work HR and it depends on the selecting official.

BUT with that said. Most like to see that you are either working or at least doing something other than just sitting around. If you have more than a month of down time then you need to fill it in. Volunteer at the hospital, a shelter, school, etc… have something to show you are keeping up and staying on a schedule. If there is a blank space for a month or more then minds are going to wonder did you just sit all day, serve jail time, have other issues, etc…
 
BlahBlahYouToo said:
lets say you have 3 candidates that are equally qualified in terms of competency, skill set, qualifications for a job opening.
they are same age, from equally prestigious schools, good people skills, good compatibility with team that he/she will be working with if hired, etc.

they all are the sole breadwinner for the family and "need" the job equally to support their family.

candidate #1 currently has a job and is looking for an environment change.
candidate #2 has been laid off for 6+ months, actively networking and searching during that time, but due to the poor economy hasn't been able to find anything
candidate #3 recently got laid off this past week.

who do you hire?

and yes, they are equally attractive, because i know someone is going to suggest hiring the hottest one.
Click to expand...

I have a hard time believing this would matter at all or even come up during an interview.

I'd say it comes down to personality and how well you clicked with the people you'd be working with. And no matter what you may say, everyone is different when it comes to this point.
 
I can tell you that at my previous firm, if you had been laid off or were otherwise out-of-work, you weren't even getting an interview.

I thought it was an idiotic policy, as thousands of well-qualified lawyers have been laid off through no fault of their own, but that's what it was.
 
Both recruiters and HR folks seem to prefer those who already have a job to those who are unemployed, all else being equal.

The logic appears to be that still having a job in these tough economic times is a good sign that you're a valuable employee - versus someone who was laid off for not working hard enough / useful enough.
 
JulesMaximus said:
I have a hard time believing this would matter at all or even come up during an interview.

I'd say it comes down to personality and how well you clicked with the people you'd be working with. And no matter what you may say, everyone is different when it comes to this point.
Click to expand...

Yup. Infact, they would have to supply that info without HR asking for it because it's illegal to ask what their marital status is.
 
Train said:
If "all things being equal" then i'd probably hire the guy without a job. Just seems like the right thing to do.

But in the real world, it is likely never the case. Check WHY the guy who was laid off, was laid off. Did the company go under? Was he part of the problem or was it really out of his hands? Is the company still in business? With people still doing what he did? Then he was probably laid off because he was the least productive member of the team.

Remember, no one is ever as good as they are on their interview,
Click to expand...

lol. management material right derr.
 
Today, that wouldn't be a criterion for how I would decide. It just wouldn't matter one bit.

In the past, when there were jobs available for nearly all the people with talent, I would have been very skeptical of someone who was out of work for 6 months. But there are so many talented people looking for work now, that wouldn't be a factor these days.
 
JS80 said:
lol. management material right derr.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Notice how I covered my ass by stating that such an "all things being equal" scenario would never really happen anyways 😉

<-- Is starting a new job as a dept head next week.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top